Jump to content

Dazzler

Members
  • Content count

    139
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from Old Bruce in Exporting resizes image   
    ...actually I think I just worked out what the MBWP is for - if you are creating small sprites/icons and find a nice alignment of pixels using a vector that is sat off of the pixel grid, it means you can move it around without losing that pixel setup (ie. keeping the anti-aliasing the same). That might actually be important in certain situations.
  2. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from driftinsider in Adding composition areas in Affinity Photo?   
    Or just get the entire set of Photo , Designer and Publisher . Seriously though, just drop your cloud subs for a couple of months and there's the money to do just that!

    From what it loooks like you're doing I'd say Designer is a much better tool for that than working in a raster package like Photoshop. Give it a spin and I think you'll see the benefits fairly early on. PS = raster with some vector abilities. Designer = Vector with some raster abilities. Publisher + Designer + Photo = everything in one place using the personas.
     
  3. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from Alfred in Exporting resizes image   
    I've always thought of it as an additional constraint, however the two can't really co-exist, so the MBWP takes precedence. Personally I think if you turn on the MBWP it should turn off the FPA button, as that clearly no longer applies.
  4. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from firstdefence in Macro question.   
    Yeah that's a real shame, and a bit of a surprise. However, in general I really like the way they've separated the 'macro' parts from the image type in Photo - so converting to different formats whilst applying a macro at the same time is a breeze compared to a PS macro, where you have to deal with the 'override file open' type things that never seem to work as you'd expect them to. It's early days with this software - and once they've cracked these early bugs it should become a fantastic piece of software.
  5. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from ArthurFfox in Problem selecting transparent color   
    Alternatively, the Select > Select Sampled Color... option when clicked on will give a default selection around most of the items of all colours, however when you then click on a colour on the image it'll sample that colour and select items that are that colour and the tolerance control allows you to expand that range a bit if needs be. You can also keep clicking around in the image area whilst the dialogue is open to select slightly different colours etc.
  6. Thanks
    Dazzler got a reaction from Gigatronix Pete in Exporting resizes image   
    It happens in other software too. It's because if you take a one pixel line and position it half a pixel to the left (the fractional part of the position) it needs to now render that across two pixels (it will most likely do two half opacity lines instead of one full opacity line), to make it look like that's where it is sat. It's called antialiasing and is the whole reason the 'snap to pixel' style constraints exist.
  7. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from jordanf in [Designer] Brush creation for stitch spacing   
    Hmmm this seems to highlight a problem (I'd call it a bug?) with the way the brushes are working. I've made a test brush as a PNG, in a similar way at an exact pixel dimension, and exported it (it's 200 pixels height). So I then bring this in as an intensity brush with a width of 200px to match the height of the exported brush image. Things aren't looking too bad, but with just a two point line you can see a problem - if you grab the node tool and slowly drag one end of the line out to make it longer you'll notice that the brush gets stretched, until it reaches a certain length, then it snaps back to allow another repetition to creep in, which then looks squashed. So rather than just extending the brush pattern and repeating it's actually affecting the brush right back up the path. This seems wrong to me - I think there's an issue with the maths in there somewhere. I can only imagine what a nightmare this is to program, but ultimately the brush should IMHO run consistently from the start point and be aligned with the length of the line, so when working on the end of the path it doesn't affect the beginning of the path. Affecting the brush width should really be the only thing that has an affect on the pattern position along the entire length of the path. Also, if my line is the exact length of my original brush graphic and has a brush width that matches the height of the orginal graphic, I'd expect it to align perfectly - it doesn't even come close.

    Edit: I've reported this as a bug. I have discovered that using Butt Cap on the stroke makes it align perfectly with the original so long as it is the same length, but upon pulling out the end node it still stretches the brush rather than repeating it as I think it should.
  8. Thanks
    Dazzler got a reaction from Gigatronix Pete in What is the best way to warm up this image?   
    Add a curves adjustment, then under the histogram there is a dropdown selection for the channel (normally set on Master), switch it to blue. Then, just click and drag on the middle of the line in the histogram and drag down a bit ... it's a live preview so you'll see immediately the effect this has on the image. The histogram is showing the levels in the image ranging from shadows on the left to highlights on the right, and you'll see a peak (or maybe several peaks) where most of your image is sat in that range. You can create several points on the curve and drag them around to affect maybe only the darker areas or create an s-curve to enhance or reduce contrast in a particular tone range. By choosing blue channel you'll only be affecting the levels of the blue, therefore having an effect on the hues in the image, pulling down making it less blue and pushing up increasing the blue and making the image cooler. By using curves you can leave the white area alone, whereas colour balance will have a more general effect.
  9. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from carl123 in Stacking for Noise reduction   
    To answer this, there is no minimum, but to explain it better you need to understand how it works. So it's working on the law of averages, whereby if you take a single pixel on the image and it had some noise (random value between 0 and 255 for example, although in reality it would be across three channels and unlikely to hit the extremeties of the value range). For the sake of simplicy let's imagine the orignal image without noise should be the value 127. So if the noise on the original image changes the value to 254. You now need another image with noise at a value of 0 to bring that back in line to where it should be ((254 + 0)/2 = 127). Of course noise isn't likely to be that severe, but it's very unlikely that with 2 images the two noise values would cancel each other out perfectly, but in theory the end result of two images should be closer in truth than either one of the images alone. Obviously, the more images used in the process the more they are likely to smooth each other out. In theory, each noisey value should be biased towards the original 'correct' value, so after adding them all up and dividing the result you should be pretty close to the true value. So yes you can do it with any number of images, but the more the merrier. Two images is unlikely to make a lot of difference, but you may see some improvement. Two should still be better than one. However, there must be a point at which adding more images also becomes fairly pointless. The difference in quality between using two and three images will be greater than the difference in quality between 45 and 46 images.

    The next problem is capturing the images without capturing movement in the image, fine for studio type still shots but not so easy in other situations.
  10. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from carl123 in Stacking for Noise reduction   
    To answer this, there is no minimum, but to explain it better you need to understand how it works. So it's working on the law of averages, whereby if you take a single pixel on the image and it had some noise (random value between 0 and 255 for example, although in reality it would be across three channels and unlikely to hit the extremeties of the value range). For the sake of simplicy let's imagine the orignal image without noise should be the value 127. So if the noise on the original image changes the value to 254. You now need another image with noise at a value of 0 to bring that back in line to where it should be ((254 + 0)/2 = 127). Of course noise isn't likely to be that severe, but it's very unlikely that with 2 images the two noise values would cancel each other out perfectly, but in theory the end result of two images should be closer in truth than either one of the images alone. Obviously, the more images used in the process the more they are likely to smooth each other out. In theory, each noisey value should be biased towards the original 'correct' value, so after adding them all up and dividing the result you should be pretty close to the true value. So yes you can do it with any number of images, but the more the merrier. Two images is unlikely to make a lot of difference, but you may see some improvement. Two should still be better than one. However, there must be a point at which adding more images also becomes fairly pointless. The difference in quality between using two and three images will be greater than the difference in quality between 45 and 46 images.

    The next problem is capturing the images without capturing movement in the image, fine for studio type still shots but not so easy in other situations.
  11. Thanks
    Dazzler got a reaction from Gigatronix Pete in What is the best way to warm up this image?   
    Add a curves adjustment, then under the histogram there is a dropdown selection for the channel (normally set on Master), switch it to blue. Then, just click and drag on the middle of the line in the histogram and drag down a bit ... it's a live preview so you'll see immediately the effect this has on the image. The histogram is showing the levels in the image ranging from shadows on the left to highlights on the right, and you'll see a peak (or maybe several peaks) where most of your image is sat in that range. You can create several points on the curve and drag them around to affect maybe only the darker areas or create an s-curve to enhance or reduce contrast in a particular tone range. By choosing blue channel you'll only be affecting the levels of the blue, therefore having an effect on the hues in the image, pulling down making it less blue and pushing up increasing the blue and making the image cooler. By using curves you can leave the white area alone, whereas colour balance will have a more general effect.
  12. Like
    Dazzler reacted to dutchshader in Layer cliping opacity   
    where the layer opacity is set to 50% it affects the opacity of the white circle, where the color opacity is set to 50% it only affects the red square.
  13. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from cerebros in Designer: Removing parts of a shape   
    Check you have your snapping turned on (the magnet button should be depressed), and then if you click the little arrow next to the magnet, check you have 'snap to object geometry' checked. That seems to do it for me.
  14. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from Roger C in Designer: Removing parts of a shape   
    Ok, first of all, looking at your design this should be fairly easy to create using vectors alone, without the need for pixel layers. As always with graphics software there's normally several ways to achieve the same result, so what I say may not be the best or fastest method.

    So first of all, get rid of the pixel mask, that isn't necessary in Designer, as the circle itself can be used to clip the other items by simply dragging the other layer within it (be careful when you drag - note that the blue highlights change position as you drag it over or around another layer, and each of these positions has a different effect when you release). What you want to do is simply drag your curves within the circle so it's just a nested layer within it (so the blue highlight should be showing from the bottom of the purple circle layer with a gap on the left hand side). Once this is placed like that all the inner parts will be clipped by the 'parent' layer - the circle.
    Secondly, get rid of the pixel layer masks within the individual curves - you won't need any pixels here! Once you've done that (you may want to delete the masks one at a time to keep track of what goes where and edit the curves each time), select one of the indivudal curves and switch to the node tool. Where you want the curve to stop and go 'under' the other curves, simply hover over the curve at the intersection of the two curves and you should see a highlighted yellow confirmation that let's you know it's snapping to the intersection. Click to add a point here. Then add another point in the same way where you want the curve to begin again. Then you can select one of these points and choose 'Break Curve' from the context menu at the top of the screen. Then do the same for the other point. (you can actually select both points and do the break curve in one go). You should notice now in the layers panel that your curve has now become three curves. Simply select the one that is the middle of the original curve and delete that layer. Do this for all the remaining curves and you should be good to go, with totally vector, scalable shapes that are very clean and accurate.
    Hope that helps!

     
  15. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from Roger C in Designer: Removing parts of a shape   
    Ok, first of all, looking at your design this should be fairly easy to create using vectors alone, without the need for pixel layers. As always with graphics software there's normally several ways to achieve the same result, so what I say may not be the best or fastest method.

    So first of all, get rid of the pixel mask, that isn't necessary in Designer, as the circle itself can be used to clip the other items by simply dragging the other layer within it (be careful when you drag - note that the blue highlights change position as you drag it over or around another layer, and each of these positions has a different effect when you release). What you want to do is simply drag your curves within the circle so it's just a nested layer within it (so the blue highlight should be showing from the bottom of the purple circle layer with a gap on the left hand side). Once this is placed like that all the inner parts will be clipped by the 'parent' layer - the circle.
    Secondly, get rid of the pixel layer masks within the individual curves - you won't need any pixels here! Once you've done that (you may want to delete the masks one at a time to keep track of what goes where and edit the curves each time), select one of the indivudal curves and switch to the node tool. Where you want the curve to stop and go 'under' the other curves, simply hover over the curve at the intersection of the two curves and you should see a highlighted yellow confirmation that let's you know it's snapping to the intersection. Click to add a point here. Then add another point in the same way where you want the curve to begin again. Then you can select one of these points and choose 'Break Curve' from the context menu at the top of the screen. Then do the same for the other point. (you can actually select both points and do the break curve in one go). You should notice now in the layers panel that your curve has now become three curves. Simply select the one that is the middle of the original curve and delete that layer. Do this for all the remaining curves and you should be good to go, with totally vector, scalable shapes that are very clean and accurate.
    Hope that helps!

     
  16. Like
    Dazzler reacted to Line in Vectorbrushes scaling   
    Such a easy Thing for that…. it worked, thank you!
  17. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from Alfred in Vectorbrushes scaling   
    In the stroke properties there's a 'scale with object' tickbox for that.
  18. Like
    Dazzler reacted to Eddy-2 in Convert to picture   
    Thanks - job done.
  19. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from Dan C in Convert to picture   
    You can just rasterise the layer. Turn off preserve FX to rasterise them too, so they become part of the image, and you end up with a pixel layer, that you can then crop with the vector crop tool.
  20. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from Dan C in Convert to picture   
    You can just rasterise the layer. Turn off preserve FX to rasterise them too, so they become part of the image, and you end up with a pixel layer, that you can then crop with the vector crop tool.
  21. Like
    Dazzler reacted to PixelPest in Joining nodes when using the pen tool   
    "Divide" should do the same - is this available?
  22. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from Alfred in Joining nodes when using the pen tool   
    Oh wait a minute - there is a function ... 'separate curves' does exactly that!
     
    Layer > Geometry > Separate Curves

    That would've been nice to have on a right click context menu on the curves layer. Not that it's something you need that often I guess.
  23. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from Sean P in Jagged edges on white shapes   
    Aaah so that's what the coverage map does! I did play with that a few times and wondered what it did, but couldn't see anything happening - now I know .
  24. Like
    Dazzler reacted to firstdefence in Image Tracing in Affinity Designer?   
    I can't see Affinity adding Tracing anytime soon, there are a plethora of apps and online options and I doubt Affinity could improve on them. Bitmap to vector is one hell of a lottery, you roll the trace dice and wait to see what comes out the other end. The results are rarely editable  to the point you get a clean vector unless it's a simple design and few colours and of course a hi res image. Also tracing creates hundreds if not thousands of nodes. You will always end up with a vector you will have to tweak.
    Personally I think the time would be better spent learning manual trace techniques so you get exactly what you want with clean lines and minimal nodes. 
  25. Like
    Dazzler got a reaction from michacassola in Snapping a shape to a curve   
    @michacassola

    The pie tool can be used to create a segment of a doughnut like that. The inner orange handle pulls the centre out to create the ring whilst the other one decides the angle. Then you can create many and use the point transform tool to connect them as you've said. Just remember when you are connecting them to move the pivot point onto one of the end points first, then move it into place (all this using the point transform tool), then once it's snapped the the corresponding point on then end, rotate it to make it connect properly. Everything should snap quite nicely  
×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.